«

Congratulations, folks. It took only three posts in this thread (OP,
my answer, and the riposte) to bazooka a beginner's request for
pointers to study material into a completely pointless vivisection of
the three letter acronym STL.

MiB.

On 2/18/2011 12:22 AM, ramtin wrote:
> hi all ,
> i want to learn stl c++ programing .
> but i actully dont know what stl really is (?)
> if any one know a good text book for it plz send it links for me .
> and i want to code one of it function in c programing which one do you
> think is good for me (to code it) as i am new at this . . .
> thanks of all
A excellent book I've had for many years is

The C++ Standard Library: A Tutorial and Reference by Nicolai M. Josuttis


Adrian

Leigh Johnston wrote:

>> The meaning of "STL" can only "change over time" to be understood as
>> the C++ standard library if the mistake of confusing the Standard
>> Template Library with the C++ standard library is reiterated and
>> perpetuated over time.
>>
>
> **** happens.

Yes, it does. Yet, that doesn't mean that refering to the C++ standard
library as "the STL" makes sense, nor does it justify reiterating a
flagrant error. So, using your expression, **** may happen but that
doesn't give anyone the right to not only intentionally make it but also
spread it around.


Rui Maciel

"Rui Maciel" <> wrote in message
news:4d5f1678$0$24788$...
> Leigh Johnston wrote:
>
>>> The meaning of "STL" can only "change over time" to be understood as
>>> the C++ standard library if the mistake of confusing the Standard
>>> Template Library with the C++ standard library is reiterated and
>>> perpetuated over time.
>>>
>>
>> **** happens.
>
> Yes, it does. Yet, that doesn't mean that refering to the C++ standard
> library as "the STL" makes sense, nor does it justify reiterating a
> flagrant error. So, using your expression, **** may happen but that
> doesn't give anyone the right to not only intentionally make it but also
> spread it around.
>
>
I think some people don't care if it's correct because it's not important
enough for them to bother. I agree it isn't correct to refer to the std lib
as STL, and I'm sure little things like this are important to people who are
trying to learn and learn things properly.

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Adrian <> spake the secret code
<ijn4ia$led$> thusly:

>A excellent book I've had for many years is
>
>The C++ Standard Library: A Tutorial and Reference by Nicolai M. Josuttis

+1
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/the-direct3d-graphics-pipeline/>

Legalize Adulthood! <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

MiB wrote:

> Congratulations, folks. It took only three posts in this thread (OP,
> my answer, and the riposte) to bazooka a beginner's request for
> pointers to study material into a completely pointless vivisection of
> the three letter acronym STL.

If you believe it's pointless then you failed to understand the problem.
It's impossible to provide any decent pointers on a particular topic if
some people don't know what's the topic. In this case, if people mistake
the STL with the C++ standard library then they can do the newbie a
disservice by suggesting that he reads on C++'s streams or on the C
standard library. If the newbie is in fact looking for the Standard
Template Library stuff, which means the generic containers and all those
algorithms that go with them, then those referring to the complete C++
standard library are effectively wasting his time.


Rui Maciel

Pete Becker wrote:

> Ah yes, citing the infallible wikipedia.

You are free to fix any mistake that the article carries. What mistakes
have you found so far?


Rui Maciel

James Kanze wrote:

> Which is, or has been, the case. As Leigh says, language
> evolves, and today, the exact meaning of STL depends on who is
> talking---in other words, the acronym doesn't have an exact
> meaning.

The acronym doesn't have an exact meaning only to those who don't know
what the Standard Template Library is.


> In many ways, Humpty Dumpty is right. "When I use a
> word, it means just what I choose it to mean." Of course, if I
> choose something very different from what other people
> understand, communication is rendered significantly more
> difficult, but in the end, each speaker chooses his or her
> vocabulary according to their personal beliefs. And when the
> personal beliefs of a majority of a liguistic group change, the
> generally accepted meaning changes.

If we look at this as a semantics issue then the only case that we can
make is that the meaning of an expression can change over time. This is
not the same as claiming that the meaning of an expression should change
over time. In this case, just because some people fail to know the
meaning of STL, either due to confusion or because they simply never
learned what it meant, it doesn't give them the right to perpetuate their
mistakes, particularly those based on ignorance that are subsequently
forced to have some sort of meaning by fooling around with backronym
games. This particular acronym, STL, which refers to C++'s Standard
Template Library, has a very specific and objective meaning. Therefore,
there is absolutely no reason to try to make it some other thing it isn't,
no matter how many people fall for the exact same mistake.


Rui Maciel

On Feb 19, 12:17 am, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+n...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-18, James Kanze wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 9:52 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Pete Becker wrote:
> >> > MiB is correct, but note that many people use "STL" to refer
> >> > to the C++ STandard Library.

> >> The C++ standard library encompasses a bit more components
> >> than the STL[1]. If "many people" refer to the C++'s standard
> >> library as "STL" then "many people" are making a mistake.

> > The C++ standard library is largely a "template" library.

> I think of it as three parts: the C library (which is a quite large
> part!), the parts from (or compatible with) the original STL
> (containers, iterators and algorithms), and some other stuff
> (iostreams, locales, possibly std::string ...).

> Personally, when I say STL (which is rarely) I mean the second part.
> You'd never hear me claim std:rintf is part of the STL.

Good point. The T in STL means template, so STL really
shouldn't refer to anything that isn't a template. For most
people I talk to, STL doesn't include the C library, and it
doesn't include some of the language support either (e.g. the
operator new functions, or the standard exceptions). And for
almost everyone, it does include the parts of Stepanov's library
which were included in the standard. Where the meaning varies
is whether additional templates in the standard library (e.g.
std::basic_string, or the iostreams or the locale stuff) is part
of STL or not, and for some people, whether parts of Stepanov's
library that didn't make it into the standard (like slist), or
templates which have since been added to Stepanov's library
(like rope or hash_map) are part of the STL. Usage varies, so
if you want to be precise, it's best to avoid the term.

--
James Kanze

On Feb 19, 1:02 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> James Kanze wrote:
> > Which is, or has been, the case. As Leigh says, language
> > evolves, and today, the exact meaning of STL depends on who is
> > talking---in other words, the acronym doesn't have an exact
> > meaning.

> The acronym doesn't have an exact meaning only to those who don't know
> what the Standard Template Library is.

The acronym doesn't have an exact meaning for those who wish to
communicate precisely with other people.

> > In many ways, Humpty Dumpty is right. "When I use a
> > word, it means just what I choose it to mean." Of course, if I
> > choose something very different from what other people
> > understand, communication is rendered significantly more
> > difficult, but in the end, each speaker chooses his or her
> > vocabulary according to their personal beliefs. And when the
> > personal beliefs of a majority of a liguistic group change, the
> > generally accepted meaning changes.

> If we look at this as a semantics issue then the only case that we can
> make is that the meaning of an expression can change over time. This is
> not the same as claiming that the meaning of an expression should change
> over time.

There's no should in it. There's nobody who is making immutable
laws---even in French, the academie française can't stop the
evolution of language. It's just a fact of life.

> In this case, just because some people fail to know the
> meaning of STL,

They know their meaning, just as well as you know yours.

> either due to confusion or because they simply never
> learned what it meant,

They might not have learned what it meant, but they know what it
means. At least in the community they're communicating with.

> it doesn't give them the right to perpetuate their
> mistakes, particularly those based on ignorance that are subsequently
> forced to have some sort of meaning by fooling around with backronym
> games.

There's no ignorance or mistake about it. No one is required to
know the full etymology of a word in order to be able to use it.
All they have to know is how the person they're communicating
with will understand it.

> This particular acronym, STL, which refers to C++'s Standard
> Template Library, has a very specific and objective meaning.

Which has changed over time. When I first heard it, it meant a
library developed and maintained by Stepanov, including some
things that aren't in the standard C++ library today. You're
meaning doesn't correspond to the original use. (And wha do you
mean by C++'s Standard Template Library? C++ has a standard
library, much of which is implemented using templates, but
there's no such thing as C++'s standard template library.)

> Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to try to make it
> some other thing it isn't, no matter how many people fall for
> the exact same mistake.

It's not a mistake for people to use a common vocabulary, as
long as they understand one another.

--
James Kanze